ExpandCollapse

Banned

I recently found these videos on YouTube and I believe they are a fairly accurate view of how KJOs view the "Modern Versions" of scripture. I do not know who this preacher is, but I believe it from a Baptist church in Alabama. I do not know his views on other areas of doctrine, but I am in general agreement with this sermon. It is in 4 parts, about 53 minutes total duration. It is a very interesting video to watch and listen to, you will not be bored.

I am on a phone, so I can't post the links. Perhaps someone can help me out and post the link for each part.

Anyway, go to YouTube and search;

How The Modern Translations Attack the Deity of Jesus Christ Part 1

Simply copy that title and paste at YouTube and you will find the correct video. You will also see links for Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

Oh, and for James White fans, this pastor addresses his book about the KJB in Part 3 and 4. But I recommend starting at Part 1 and viewing each video in order.

After viewing, I'm sure we can have a lively debate about any points this pastor makes.

Again, I hope someone will post the links here for everyone's benefit.

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

Are all modern translations being unfairly grouped together as though they were all the same? Do all modern translations actually attack and deny the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ or is that a misrepresentation or distortion?

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

Here is clear proof that other translations may more clearly and precisely present the deity of Christ than the KJV does in some verses.

Several early English Bibles and many modern translations clearly, precisely, and accurately identify Jesus Christ as "our God and Saviour" at 2 Peter 1:1. William Tyndale in 1534 and John Rogers in 1537 translated the last part of this verse as "righteousness that cometh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." The Great, Whittingham's, Geneva, Bishops', Haak’s 1657 English translation of the Dutch Bible, Wesley's, 1842 Baptist or Bernard's, NKJV, Majority Text Interlinear, and many other translations render it "righteousness of our God and Saviour [or Savior] Jesus Christ." James White maintained that this is the proper translation of the Greek according to the Granville Sharp's rule (King James Only Controversy, p. 268). Granville Sharp (1735-1813) cited 2 Peter 1:1 as his first example “of sentences which fall under the first rule, and are improperly rendered in the English version [KJV]“ (Remarks, p. 20). James D. Price noted that “the Greek grammatical construction here identifies Jesus Christ as God and Savior” (King James Onlyism, p. 323). Concerning this verse in his multi-volume commentary, David Sorenson wrote: “Though it is not quite as evident in English, in the Received Text, the phrase literally reads, ‘the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ’” (p. 228). Kenneth Wuest asserted: “The expression, ‘God and our Saviour’ is in a construction in the Greek text which demands that we translate, ‘our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (In These Last Days, p. 17). John Ankerberg and John Weldon noted that “Greek scholars Dana and Mantley, in their A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, confirm the truth of Sharp’s rule, and then explain: ‘Second Peter 1:1 … means that Jesus is our God and Savior” (Facts On Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 24). In his commentary on 1 and 2 Peter, Gordon Clark translated the phrase as “of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (New Heavens, New Earth, p. 170). Clark noted: “Other references to ‘our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ’ do not diminish the deity asserted here in 1:1” (p. 171). Surprisingly, the 1611 edition of the KJV has a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1 [God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ], and that comma seems to have remained in most KJV editions printed up to the 1769 Oxford edition. The 1743 Cambridge and 1760 Cambridge editions had removed it before the 1769. Even the first KJV edition printed in America in 1782 and KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1788 and in 1795 still have a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1. How does this comma in KJV editions up to the 1769 Oxford affect the understanding and interpretation of this verse? Concerning this verse in his 1633 commentary on 2 Peter, Thomas Adams observed: “Some read these words by disjoining them; of God, and of our Saviour,“ which would seem to refer to the rendering in the 1611. At 2 Peter 1:1, the 2005 Cambridge edition of the KJV has this note taken from the standard 1762 Cambridge edition: “Gr. of our God and Saviour.” KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1810, 1821, 1835, 1857, 1865, 1868, and 1885, and at Cambridge in 1769, 1844, 1872, and 1887 also have this same note. Granville Sharp observed: “In the margin of our present version the proper reading is ‘of our God and Saviour,‘ manifestly referring both titles to one person” (Remarks, p. 22). James Scholefield maintained that this verse has “the same construction as in verse 11” where it was rendered in the KJV as “of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Hints, p. 157). A. T. Robertson wrote: “In 2 Peter 1:11 and 3:18, the pronoun ’our’ comes after ’Lord,’ but that makes no difference in the idiom. It is ’our Lord and Saviour,’ and it is so translated in the English versions. But we have precisely the same idiom in 2 Peter 1:1, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’” (The Minister, p. 63). Robertson asserted: “The idiom compels the translation, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (p. 64). Concerning 2 Peter 1:1, Ralph Wardlaw noted in 1815: “An instance of construction, in every respect the same, occurs at the eleventh verse of this same chapter” (Discourses, p. 75). Wardlaw asserted: “It is just as improper to render the words in the first verse, ‘through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,‘ (unless the appellations ‘God and our Saviour’ be understood as both connecting with ‘Jesus Christ’) as it would be to render those in this verse [1:11] ‘in the kingdom of the Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ’” (p. 76). John Dagg indicated that the rendering in our common English version at 2 Peter 1:1 should be emended to “the righteousness of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Manual of Theology, pp. 183-184). Timothy Dwight (1752-1817) wrote: “According to the original, of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Theology Explained, I, p. 525).

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

The NKJV, the MKJV, and several other translations read "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" at Titus 2:13. A. T. Robertson noted that our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ "is the necessary meaning of the one article with theou and soteros just as in 2 Peter 1:1 (Word Pictures, IV, p. 604). Concerning Titus 2:13, Granville Sharp stated: "This testimony, therefore, of the sacred text, in favour of our Lord's divine nature, ought not to be withheld from the mere English reader" (Remarks, p. 51). William Hendriksen wrote: "No valid reason has ever been found which would show that the (Granville Sharp) rule does not apply in the present case [Titus 2:13]" (Timothy and Titus, p. 375). Prince Hoare cited or reported that “the only sense in which the Greek Fathers understand that important passage, for instance, Titus 2:13, is that which is ascribed to it by Mr. Sharp” (Memoirs, I, p. 501). Joseph Benson observed that Theodore Beza maintained “that one person only is spoken of, namely, Jesus Christ” (New Testament, II, p. 472). Francis Turretin (1623-1687) as translated by George Giger wrote: “He is called ‘the great God’ (Tit. 2:13)--certainly not the Father, but the Son because only one article is prefixed to the words God and Saviour (which would not be the case if they were two persons)“ (Institutes, I, p. 284). R. A. Torrey asserted that “in the correct translation of Titus 2:13 … our Lord Jesus is spoken of as, ‘our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Fundamental Doctrines, p. 78). Ankerberg and Weldon maintained that “even the context of Titus 2:13 shows that one Person, not two, was in Paul’s mind, for Paul wrote of the ‘glorious appearing’ of that Person” (Facts on Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 24). James Buswell noted: “It is clear from the entire New Testament that it is Christ whose glorious appearing is expected: Christ Jesus is our great God and Saviour” (Systematic Theology, p. 104). Gordon Clark noted: “The subject matter is the glorious return of our Lord. One person returns; not the Father, but the Son. Hence the great God and Jesus is the same person” (The Trinity, p. 17). Clark added: “It is difficult in Greek to separate ‘of us’ (our) from ‘the great God’” (Ibid.). The 1611 edition of the KJV had a comma after God at Titus 2:13 [the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ]. The first KJV edition printed in America in 1782 and KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1788 and 1795 still have a comma after God at Titus 2:13. Scrivener observed: “In regard to weightier matters, the comma put by 1611 after “God” in Titus 2:13 is fitly removed by 1769 modern, that ‘the great God and our Saviour’ may be seen to be joint predicates of the same Divine person” (Authorized Edition, p. 87). The 1743 and 1760 Cambridge editions edited by F. S. Parris had removed the comma at Titus 2:13 before the 1769 Oxford followed them.

Concerning Titus 2:13, J. H. Murray maintained that the KJV “makes it as if two persons were spoken of, the Father and the Son; where the Son only, in the original Greek, is mentioned” (Help, p. 64). Concerning the KJV’s rendering at this verse, Gordon Clark observed: “This allows the objector to separate the great God from our Lord Jesus Christ” (Trinity, p. 16). James Price asserted: “Some versions, like the KJV and ASV, do not render this verse as referring to Christ as God” (King James Onlyism, p. 323). In 1829, Edward Burton contended: “In our authorized version, the words certainly do not necessarily imply that our Saviour Jesus Christ is the great God; but if we were to translate them, as we are equally authorized in doing, ’the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,’ it would be obvious to every reader, that the expression great God referred to Jesus Christ” (Testimonies, p. 113). John Dick (1764-1833) included Titus 2:13 as an example of verses “in which the name of God is given to our Saviour, but the evidence does not appear to common readers, in consequence of the manner in which they have been translated” (Lectures on Theology, I, p. 316). John Dick gave “our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” as “a translation more conformable to the original” (p. 317). I. M. Halderman wrote: “Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the Apostle Paul speaks of Him as ’our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ’ (correct reading) (Titus 2:13)” (Bible Expositions, I, p. 456). Augustus Strong regarded Titus 2:13 to be “a direct, definite, and even studied declaration of Christ’s divinity” (Systematic Theology, p. 307). E. W. Bullinger quoted from Titus 2:13 once as follows: “of our great God and Saviour” (Figures, p. 505), and he maintained that the latter clause of this verse is a “hendiadys: One person being meant, not two” (p. 669). J. L. Dagg advocated that the rendering at Titus 2:13 be amended to “our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Manual of Theology, pp. 183-184). Concerning Titus 2:13, Ralph Wardlaw wrote: “To avoid all ambiguity, and to express the precise sense of the original, they ought to be rendered, ‘the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Discourses, p. 76). Timothy Dwight asserted concerning Titus 2:13: “In the Greek it is the Great God even our Saviour Jesus Christ, or our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Theology Explained, I, p. 526). In his English translation of the 1637 Dutch Annotations at this verse, Theodore Haak noted: “That is, of Jesus Christ, our great God and Saviour; for both these titles are here ascribed to Jesus Christ” Concerning this verse in his Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, H. Harvey noted: “The following context, in the relative clause (verse 14), ’who gave himself for us,’ plainly relates only to Christ, but naturally requires us to take the whole preceding expression, ’our Great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ,’ as its antecedent” (pp. 139-140). Concerning this verse in his commentary, Robert Horton asserted: “The qualifying description of verse 14, which refer to Jesus Christ, completely overbalances the sentence if Christ is to be separated from ’the great God’” (p. 186). Francis Turretin noted: “Epiphaneia is never attributed to the Father, but always to Christ. He, whose advent we look for, is said to have given himself for us (Tit. 2:14), which applies to Christ alone” (Institutes, I, p. 284). Consider also 2 Timothy 1:10--”appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Are all modern translations being unfairly grouped together as though they were all the same? Do all modern translations actually attack and deny the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ or is that a misrepresentation or distortion?

Click to expand...

Watch the videos and see. I just finished #1 and it was interesting and directly answers your question

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

At John 8:58, Wesley’s N. T., the 1971 KJII, 1973 NASB, NKJV, MKJV, GLT, and Wuest's translation capitalize "I AM" to make sure the reader knows that Christ was claiming here to be God. Do these translations more clearly indicate a connection between this verse and Exodus 3:14 than does the KJV?

Oliver B. Greene wrote that “in John 8:58 He [Christ] told the Jews, ’Before Abraham was, I AM’” (Bible Truth, p. 105). In this same book, Oliver B. Greene noted that Jesus “had plainly told the Pharisees, ‘Before Abraham was, I AM’ (John 8:58), and they took up stones to stone Him because He applied Jehovah’s name to Himself” (p. 87). I. M. Halderman asserted: “The ‘I AM’ of John 8:58, is the ‘I AM’ of Exodus 3:14” (Bible Expositions, I, p. 519). Peter Ruckman referred to “the tremendous ‘I AM’ (John 8:58)” (Bible Babel, p. 40). Jay Green maintained that “those [translations] who do not capitalize ’I AM’ fail to reveal to the reader why the Jews picked up stones to stone Christ. It was because by saying I AM, our Lord was telling them that He was God” (Gnostics, the New Versions, p. 34). The 1560 Geneva Bible has this marginal note for “I am”: “Not only God, but the Mediator between God and man, appointed from before all eternity.”

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

At Romans 9:5, the early English Bibles and many other translations translate the verse clearly to indicate that Christ is "God over all." A note in the Geneva Bible stated concerning Romans 9:5: "A most manifest testimony of the Godhead and divinity of Christ." Concerning Romans 9:5, John Dagg observed: "Christ is here called God; not in some subordinate sense, but over all, and blessed for ever" (Manual of Theology, p. 182). Concerning this verse in the American Baptist Publication Society's American Commentary on the New Testament, Albert Arnold wrote: "We adhere to the simplest and most natural punctuation and explanation of the verse, therefore, and regard it as a direct affirmation of the Godhead of Christ, parallel with John 1:1 and 20:28" (p. 220). John Brown pointed out: "He [Christ] is not only 'over all,' but 'God over all'--God in no Inferior or secondary sense, but, as the prophet says, 'the mighty God' [Isa. 9:6]; as Paul elsewhere says, 'the great God our Saviour' [Tit. 2:13]; and as John says, 'the true God and eternal life' [1 John 5:20]" (Analytical Exposition of Romans, p. 306). Charles Hodge wrote: "Paul evidently declares that Christ, who, he had just said, was, as to his human nature, or as a man, descended from the Israelites, is, in another respect, the supreme God, or God over all, and blessed for ever" (Romans, p. 300). Concerning Romans 9:5, Gordon Clark stated: “The meaning clearly is, ‘Christ … who being God over all is blessed forever‘” (Trinity, p. 16). James Buswell asserted that “Paul referred to Christ with the words, ‘He being God over all, blessed for evermore’ (Rom. 9:5)“ (Systematic Theology, p. 104). Francis Bassett maintained that this verse (Rom. 9:5) shows “how seriously the teaching conveyed in a group of words may be affected by mere varieties of punctuation” (Examination, p. 64).

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

At John 1:14 (And the Word was made flesh), Spiros Zodhiates maintained that the KJV "has definitely mistranslated the Greek verb egeneto" (Was Christ God, p. 65). He pointed out that this Greek verb is in the middle voice and not the passive voice. Zodhiates contended that the KJV rendering could "give rise to the serious misconception that Jesus Christ was subordinate in His nature and essence to someone else, and therefore He would not be, He could not be, God co-equal with the Father" (Ibid.). Zodhiates stated that the correct rendering would be "the Word became flesh." A. T. Robertson agreed that this Greek verb is in the middle voice and that the phrase should be translated "the Word became flesh" (Word Pictures, V, pp. 5, 12). A. C. Kendrick maintained that the verb was “improperly made passive” at John 1:14 [“The Word was made flesh” for “the Word became flesh“] (Anglo-American, p. 109). Concerning John 1:14, Ralph Earle noted "we have the Greek egeneto, 'became'" (Word Meanings, p. 82). About this verse, Vincent observed: “The same verb as in verse 3. All things became through Him; He in turn became flesh” (Word Studies, II, p. 50). In his commentary on John, R. C. H. Lenski observed: “Here is the Incarnation in so many words: the Word, who was in the beginning, the life and the true light from eternity, this Word ‘became flesh’” (p. 71). In his commentary on John, Merrill Tenney quoted the words of this phrase of this verse as “The Word became flesh” (p. 70). Martin Luther wrote: “’The Word,‘ that is, the eternal Son of God, ‘became flesh,‘ that is, became man, born of the virgin Mary” (Luther’s Works, Vol. 22, p. 111). Concerning the first part of this verse, William Carpenter commented: “Not the Word was changed into flesh” (Introduction, III, p. 270). Concerning this verse in his Addresses on John, H. A. Ironside wrote: “’The Word was made flesh.’ That is not the best translation. Actually, as we have remarked already, the Word was never made anything. The Word became flesh” (p. 32). J. L. Dagg also noted that the “Word became flesh” (Manual of Theology, p. 182). In his commentary on John, Merrill Tenney quoted the phrase as “the Word became flesh” (p. 70).

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

In her tract, Gail Riplinger incorrectly implied that the "NKJV copies Jehovah Witness Version" and "demotes Jesus Christ" at Acts 4:27 and 30 with its rendering "holy Servant Jesus" while the KJV has "holy child Jesus." In his KJV-only tract entitled "Which Bible," David Hoffman listed Acts 4:27 and 30 as verses to check for "major doctrinal changes." Doug Stauffer asked: ""Does your version reduce Jesus to God's servant rather than His Son in Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27, or 4:30" (One Book, p. 297)? In his tract "A Careful Look at the NKJV," M. H. Reynolds claimed that the NKJV translators at Acts 4:27 "inserted erroneous words and meanings from corrupted modern Bible versions into the NKJV text." Lloyd Streeter maintained that the NKJV "weakens the deity of Christ, for example, in Acts 3:13, 26; Acts 4:27, 30" (75 Problems, p. 42). Gary Miller claimed that “the New King James version demotes Jesus from being the exalted Son of God to a lowly servant, like any sinful human” (Why the KJB, p. 42). In his tract "A Critique of the NKJV," Peter Ruckman cited the NKJV rendering at Acts 4:27 as "another attack on Christ's Deity, which omitted 'child.'" Ruckman also wrote: "If the Greek text has made the mistake of writing a word in Acts 4:27 which could be translated 'Servant' or 'Child,' the Holy Spirit will resolve the ambiguity with 'thy holy child Jesus,' giving Him the preeminent place as God's Son; not 'servant'" (Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 136). Al Lacy claimed: "The NKJV translators have slapped Jesus in the face by lowering Him from God's CHILD to God's SERVANT" (Can I Trust My Bible, p. 262). Streeter contended that "'servant' weakens the incarnation and deity of Christ" (75 Problems, p. 193).

This same Greek word found at Acts 4:27 and 30 was also used of Jesus at Matthew 12:18a where it was translated "servant" in the KJV. However, it was translated "child" in Wycliffe's, 1534 Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' Bibles and as "son" in 1526 Tyndale's. Why is this difference important in Acts 4:27 and 30 but unimportant in Matthew 12:18? Concerning Acts 4:27 but not concerning Matthew 12:18, Morton asked: "Which exalts the Lord Jesus Christ the most, being called God's servant or God's child?" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 43). Would Ruckman claim that the KJV rendering at Matthew 12:18 was "another attack on Christ's Deity?" Riplinger claimed that the NKJV translators took the "Sonship away from the Lord Jesus Christ" and made him merely a "servant" (Which Bible is God's Word, p. 42). Would Morton, Riplinger, Stauffer, and Ruckman claim that the KJV translators took away the Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ at Matthew 12:18 and made him merely a "servant?" The prophet Isaiah had referred to Christ as the servant of the Lord (Isa. 42:1-4, Isa. 52:13). Did the 1885 translation by John Nelson Darby, 1897 Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by George Ricker Berry, or the 1901 ASV copy the 1950's Jehovah Witness Version with their rendering "holy servant Jesus" at Acts 4:27 and 30?

The Companion Bible has this note for "child" at Acts 4:27: "child=servant, Greek pais, as in v. 25" (p. 1585). The 1657 English edition of The Dutch Annotations has the following note for "thy holy child Jesus" at Acts 4:27: "or servant, minister, See Acts 3:13, 26, see also Matthew 8:6 compared with Luke 7:2 and here verse 25." Concerning Acts 3:13, A. T. Robertson noted: "This phrase occurs in Isaiah 42:1; 52:13 about the Messiah except the name 'Jesus' which Peter adds" (Word Pictures, III, p. 43). Concerning Acts 3:13 in his 1851 commentary as edited by Alvah Hovey in the American Baptist Publication Society's American Commentary on the N. T., Horatio Hackett (1808-1875) wrote: "pais, not son=huios, but servant=Heb. ebhedh, which was one of the prophetic appellations of the Messiah, especially in the second part of Isaiah. (See Matt. 12:18, as compared with Isa. 42:1). The term occurs again in this sense in v. 26; 4:27, 30" (pp. 59-60). Concerning Acts 4:27, John Gill noted: "Unless the word should rather be rendered servant, as it is in verse 25 and which is a character that belongs to Christ, and is often given him as Mediator, who, as such, is God's righteous servant" (Exposition, VIII, p. 176).

To accuse the NKJV of copying the Jehovah Witnesses' Version when the NKJV translators did not copy it or even consult it is slanderous. To accuse the NKJV translators of taking away the Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ is ridiculous. The Greek word pais in these verses was used for both child or servant with the meaning determined by the context. Greek has a different word for "son"--huios. The KJV translated this word pais as "servant" 10 times, "child" 7 times, and "son" 3 times. James Price explained that the real reason for this choice of rendering in the book of Acts in the NKJV is that the translators thought that in this context Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD (False Witness, p. 25). Does love for the KJV justify such false and seemingly malicious attacks on other translations?

ExpandCollapse

Banned

I am providing clear, documented evidence that proves that a number of modern translations do not deny nor attack the deity of Christ as this thread incorrectly implies.

It seems that you object to the posting of accurate information that exposes incorrect KJV-only accusations.

Click to expand...

No, I object to you burying the thread before folks have a chance to view the videos and comment.

And I will give you some advice, if you want folks to listen to you, keep it short. When I see posts that are excessively wordy, I skip over them, and I think most other folks do as well. Excessive posts do not prove one correct, in fact, they often have the very opposite effect. What did Shakespeare say?

ExpandCollapse

Member

Just wanted to say thanks for posting the videos. It demonstrated that the run of the mill KJVO will present verses out of context to try to make a point. When he tried to lump in the JW bible with the other legit MVs I lost all respect (and interest). I gues proving a point comes before truth and accuracy. Psalms 12 is Gods dealing with people. He will punish the wicked and protect and preserve the righteous. You can't lift vs 6-7 out of their context.

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

And I will give you some advice, if you want folks to listen to you, keep it short. When I see posts that are excessively wordy, I skip over them....

Click to expand...

As do I, I have to tell you logos, I have not read even one of your responses because they are all way too lengthy, and appear to be cut and pastes from things you've written long ago. Sorry.

And please don't tell me I'm refusing to listen to the "other side" because I've heard the "evidence" from both sides for years now. You'll post nothing new, or anything that will suddenly change my mind. Read any Bible translation you want. I've decided on mine.

ExpandCollapse

Banned

Just wanted to say thanks for posting the videos. It demonstrated that the run of the mill KJVO will present verses out of context to try to make a point. When he tried to lump in the JW bible with the other legit MVs I lost all respect (and interest). I gues proving a point comes before truth and accuracy. Psalms 12 is Gods dealing with people. He will punish the wicked and protect and preserve the righteous. You can't lift vs 6-7 out of their context.

Click to expand...

He was not incorrect to lump the NWT with the MVs for at least two reasons.

#1 Both use the CT as source text.

#2 The footnote for Jn 9:38 in the ASV 1901 says Jesus is a created being and not the Creator, this perfectly agrees with the JWs.

So, this was not a misrepresentation whatsoever. In fact he showed further evidence that the MVs attack the doctrine that Jesus is the Creator and thus God (Genesis 1).

ExpandCollapse

Administrator

Administrator

He was not incorrect to lump the NWT with the MVs for at least two reasons.

#1 Both use the CT as source text.

#2 The footnote for Jn 9:38 in the ASV 1901 says Jesus is a created being and not the Creator, this perfectly agrees with the JWs.

So, this was not a misrepresentation whatsoever. In fact he showed further evidence that the MVs attack the doctrine that Jesus is the Creator and thus God (Genesis 1).

Click to expand...

The footnote you speak of says:

“The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature (as here) or to the Creator.”

Click to expand...

I don't see this denying the deity of Christ at all. They were bowing down to the person of Jesus and it is actually the same word used in the LXX where Abraham bowed to the Hittites (Genesis 23:7). It is bowing to a person - just as this man was doing. Was this man worshipping Jesus as the Creator in this passage?

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

I've only watched part 1, and I don't think I will continue. First off, he lumps all modern versions into one camp. Then he compares verses from the KJV to those in the RSV, implying that all other MV's follow the lead of the RSV. When they don't he makes up reasons why he thinks the others don't follow the RSV. (BTW, I think the RSV is a lousy translation.)

Example:

"You know why the NIV says "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14? You know why they put virgin back in there instead of leaving young woman? It's not about truth. If it said "young woman" 50% of those that found that out would put it down and go back to the King James Bible. They've got to have something the people will buy. It's all about sales."

Now, the NIV has always said virgin instead of young woman in Isa. 7:14, but the implication here is that at one time it said young woman but it was changed back for the purposes of increasing sales. This is a terrible untruth and is playing loose and fast with the facts.

He goes on to Luke 1:34 and again uses the RSV as the standard bearer for all modern versions. The KJV uses archaic words when Mary asked the angel how she could have a child since "I do not know a man." The RSV says, "since I don't have a husband." The NIV says, "How will this be, since I am a virgin." Guess which translation is more accurate in this case?

Really, this comparison of verses in the KJV and those in the modern versions are a result of different manuscripts (which this preacher points out.) To say that translators are attacking the diety of Christ is unfair. They are translating the manuscripts that they were given. If certain words are not in that particular manuscript they won't show up in the translations.

There are cases where the modern versions include phrases bolstering the diety of Christ but the KJV doesn't have these phrases. Should we apply the same logic as this preacher and assert that the KJV translators took out these words because they were deliberately attacking the diety of Christ?

Quick Navigation

Support us!

The management of Baptist Board works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best design, and all the other bells and whistles that goes into a forum our size.Your support is much appreciated!